#ellen jacobs

[harjindersinghsblog]

Hello Ellen,

We hope you're doing well. We have great news for you. The domain name Ellenjacobs.com is up for sale & you can buy it directly from www.ellenjacobs.com or GoDaddy.

Act Fast! Before someone else does. @ellenjacobswords

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Gandhi and his symbolism

By: Ellen Jacobs

In order to understand how the peace movement was started we must first understand Gandhi’s history as told by Gaur. He lived in Africa for 21 years after receiving a law degree from London. He was first employed and developed peaceful civil disobedience in order to protest against registration of the South African Indians. He then returns to India in 1915 and leads the National movement until independence for the Indians was earned during 1947. The civil disobedience movement lasted from 1930-1945, during which this time Gandhi preformed a 240-mile march that lasted 24 days. The “Dandi March” was performed in order to break the salt laws that required citizens to pay taxes when producing salt. This march ended up triggering the wider civil disobedience movement.

Gandhi’s peace movement was one that rocked the world and become a stepping-stone for other nonviolent movements throughout the world. One factor that formed as the backbone of his nonviolent protest was his use of symbols that provided a link between everyday life and his symbolic use of nonviolence to bring people together under the same cause. According to Gaur, “Gandhian symbols became a mainstay of the national movement due to voluntary acceptance and their (symbols) ability to pursue the particular set of values represented by them.” Gandhi emphasized the importance of truth and simplicity and his symbols encompassed those values.

One of his most popular symbols was the Charkha, which is a type of spinning wheel. It symbolized Indian independence through the people’s ability to make their own clothes. Through making their own clothes they were defying the British and their “western” way of life. The Charkha was a simple cultural symbol that Gandhi used to symbolize more than just a spinning wheel. His emphasis of simplicity is clearly shown in the symbol of the spinning wheel and shows a distinct link between his symbolic resistance and the practical cultural symbols seen everyday.

Other common cultural symbols that Gandhi transformed into symbols of the movement were salt, Khadi, fasting, and the tricolor flag. Salt was taxed when it was produced and was the purpose of the Dandi March. The salt laws symbolized unjust laws under the alien government. Thus by breaking the salt law in the march they were symbolizing their fight for liberation of the Indian people. The Khadi, which was course cotton-wear, was another practical and theoretical symbol used by Gandhi. The fabric was versatile and therefore practical; however, it also symbolized the self-reliance of the movement and the value of simplicity in everyday life. Fasting is one of the more commonly known acts preformed by Gandhi. The importance of fasting lies in the idea of self-control and denying one’s physical needs for sake of gaining something more important. It was Gandhi’s way of saying something needed to change in India. The last symbol used by Gandhi was the tricolor flag, which later become the flag of independent India. The flag has the colors white, green, and deep saffron and each color holds a symbolic meaning rooted back into Gandhi’s core values of his movement.

Gandhi did more than free a nation from unwanted, alien rule. He proved that nonviolent protest can accomplish the same goals as violent ones; therefore, providing a guide for nonviolent movements around the world. His use of symbols to link practical everyday objects to his theoretical values of truth and simplicity made his movement one with force. The Charka, salt, Khadi, fasting, and the flag were all the symbols that Gandhi used to build a peaceful mass movement.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Moral Imagination Condones Violence

By: Ellen Jacobs

Morals shape the way in which individuals and groups perceive the world around them.  Through creating guidelines and rules for people to follow, morals justify actions or beliefs. People then accept these actions to be “right” or “good” because they are considered “moral”. The moral imagination is the way in which individuals, groups, cultures, and/or nationalities understand, interpret, and create ethical standards. This moral imagination provides a justification of the ethical standards and actions that may result. However, does this justification make the actions correct or “good”?

            One’s conscience and what someone believes to be right are often excuses to find a certain action acceptable. In Joan Didion’s book, Slouching Towards Bethlehem, she explains why she has a distrust of the word “morality”. People make certain actions and justify them with these so-called “moral” standards. What people don’t realize, however, is how subjective the moral imagination is. Didion explains how dangerous it can be justifying actions by arguing that one was “following one’s conscious” or what one “believes to be right”. She argues, “How many madmen have said it and meant it? How many murderers? Klaus Fuchs said it, and the men who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre said it, and Alfred Rosenberg said it,” (164). Everyone, good and bad, use their own morals as justification. People will make decisions on how to act based on their beliefs on moral standards; thus, they justify that their actions are “correct” because they were following their morals.

            When does following what is right cross the line and turn into wrong? In Richard E. Rubenstein’s book, Reasons to Kill, he explains the different reasons why Americans chose war and the reasons they use to justify that it’s the correct thing to do. Rubenstein explains that Americans will rarely agree to go to war unless they view the cause as morally compelling (22).  He indicates what Americans view as morally compelling through stating, “For us, the only reasons that legitimate war are those that reflect generally accepted moral principles, including the right of self-defense, the duty to rescue the oppressed, and the availability of nonviolent remedies,” (27). We use these moral standards to argue that the act of violence must occur, and use it to wash our hands clean after the damage has been done.

            The system of making decisions based on what is considered morally “correct” has been occurring for millenniums in human history. During World War Two, the Nazi leaders justified their mass extinctions of the Jewish race by arguing that they were only following orders. In a German Ethics of Expediency memo, the author describes how to make technical changes and upgrades on the Nazi gas chamber vehicles. The author dehumanizes the victims through the use of words like “ninety-seven thousand”, “normal load”, “pieces”, and “dirt”. The author states, “[…] because of the alarming nature of darkness, screaming always occurs when the doors are closed,” and erases the use of the word people from the sentence entirely. Through making the people about to be viciously murdered appear more inhuman, the author masks the severity of the situation; thus, making the killings appear more morally compelling.

            Whether its because someone’s conscience tells them it’s the right thing to do or their morals establish what is right or wrong, people use morals to justify their actions. People have a conceptual idea that something is right when something is “good” and wrong when something is “bad”; however, this is a dangerous belief. As individuals, we cannot judge other people’s moral standards because they are subjective to that particular individual. Different situations possess unique characteristics; therefore, when making a decision on how to act based on morals, people react differently in each situation. As long as one can justify that their action followed their own personal moral standards, in their eyes they acted correctly. People make the fatal mistake to assume that as long as they acted in the lines of their morals then they acted good, something that can lead to the justification of violent acts.

Moral systems are not absolute; but rather, are subjective to the individual and are often revised based on different situations. As a society we use morality to defend what we do, and assume that morals are always right. The moral imagination can establish a link to justification for violent actions. We need to realize that “wrong” isn’t always bad and “right” isn’t always good; therefore, destroying the acceptance of actions based on subjective morals.

Works Cited

Didion, Joan. Slouching Towards Bethlehem. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968.

            Print.

Rubenstein, Richard E. Reasons to Kill. New York, Berlin, and London: Bloomsbury Press,

            2010. Print.

Katz, S. B. (1992). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the

            Holocaust. College English, 54(3), 255-275.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

Measuring Suffering: Why bother?

By: Ellen Jacobs

Psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl’s memoir Man’s Search for Meaning invites the readers through the many horrors that he experienced while detained in the two German Nazi concentration camp’s Auschwitz and Dachau. While the memoir may first appear to be just another familiar story of the misfortune experienced at the concentration camps, Frankl goes into detail explaining that his intent is not to tell of the mass horror that he experienced; rather, it was to tell of the psychological affect that living as a prisoner had on the minds of the occupants. He wanted to tell of the facts that pertained solely to the experiences that he, as well as, the men around him went through. At the same time that he gave the first hand accounts of what happened in the camps, he wanted to attempt to detach himself enough in order to reach a third party perspective that also possessed correct knowledge of the daily life of a Nazi concentration camp.

Throughout the story he describes the sufferings that the prisoners had to experience in their daily lives and how their new lifestyles as prisoners not only took away their ability to live their lives, but also completely dehumanized them. He describes the dynamics of human suffering and the affect on the human mind by stating the simile; “To draw an analogy: a man’s suffering is similar to the behavior of gas, if a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little. Therefore the ‘size’ of human suffering is absolutely relative” (Frankl 44).  

Through stating that suffering is like gas filling a room he is explaining that the size of suffering is not important because no how big or small the suffering is, it will fill the mind of the man experiencing it completely. If someone breaks their arm and are in extreme pain, it will consume their current thoughts. The pain takes over their conscious mind not because the pain is considered “great” or because it is happening at that moment, but because suffering at any level will take over one’s mind as long as they continue to think about it. The same goes for the person who stubs their toe; even though the pain is considered “small” in comparison to breaking a bone it still will fill the “human soul and conscious mind completely and evenly”. If someone constantly dwells on the suffering they are currently experiencing it will, no matter the size, consume them completely and remain there until they push it out of their thoughts.

The same principle could be applied to comparing two different people’s suffering. For one person, the most suffering they might have experienced in their lifetime was living in the concentration camps during the Second World War; while at the same time another person may have only known the most suffering to be losing a loved one. One cannot say that one suffered more than the other because one’s suffering is “bigger” or “smaller” than the other. The size of suffering is not only relative, but both of the men’s suffering is unique to their own life experiences, meaning it is also unique to them. One cannot compare the sufferings of two different people who have lived two separate lives because despite the size or quality of suffering, it will consume their every being.

Frankl’s memoir was filled with horrific stories of what he went through as a prisoner; I began to think that he must be angry for being “cheated” out of life and his suffering must have made him bitter to some extent. That is not the case. Frankl saw suffering more as a chore than a choice. He thought that if one’s life purpose was to suffer than they must accept it and push forward. While reflecting on this point and comparing it to his simile of gas in a chamber being like human suffering filling the soul, I came to a conclusion: suffering is only suffering if you allow it to be. Because suffering is unique to one’s experiences, then that person can only measure the “size”; however, as long as they continue to dwell on their misery it will consume them completely. If you don’t attempt to measure suffering, but rather accept it as your destiny, then can’t you also choose to look at suffering in a more positive way? Instead of the glass half empty, make the glass half full. Why attempt to measure suffering when you can choose to make the best out of what life has to offer? Therefore, demolishing your suffering as “suffering”.

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. Print.

[rhetoricsviolenceandnonviol-blog]

The Heroes of Blood Diamond

By Ellen Jacobs

In the 2006 political thriller, Blood Diamond, the title refers to the diamonds mined in Africa's war zones that are then sold to diamond companies all over the world. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Danny Archer a white gunrunner from what would be current day Zimbabwe. Solomon Vandy, played by Dijmon Hounsou, a fisherman who was captured and forced to work for the RUF (Reflationary United Front) in the diamond mines. While working he found a large pink stone and managed to conceal it during an attack by the government army, and ended up in jail with the other workers and RUF leaders. While Vandy's family was hiding from the RUF forces his son, Dia, was found, captured, and forced to work and kill for the rebels. Once Archer discovers the existence of the large, pink stone found by Vandy he makes a deal with him; help him find his family in return for the diamond. Throughout the movie the two come in contact with Maddy Bowen, played by Jennifer Connelly, an American journalist who agrees to help them in exchange for information on the "blood diamond" operation for her article exposing the flow of these “conflict diamonds” out of Africa. Despite their obvious flaws, all three characters are heroes on a different level of PCP; Archer was a hero on the cultural level, Vandy on the political level, and Bowen on the personal level.

Archer was a hero on the cultural level of PCP due to the fact that he stood up against the RUF. He was making a profit off of the “blood diamonds” he sold to diamond companies and when he met Solomon Vandy and discovered he had hid a large diamond while working at a mine for the RUF, he was immediately overwhelmed with greed to find the diamond himself. He freed Vandy from jail and made the deal to trade the diamond for help finding his wife and children. Almost the entire movie he was motivated by his own selfish reasons, using Vandy and his family as a ticket to possess the diamond. He even used Maddy Bowen by giving her information of the blood diamond process, and in return was able to gain access through a press convoy. However, at the end of the movie he handed over the diamond to Vandy and gave him a way out with his son. He called Bowen and gave her the names of major diamond distributers involved in the sale of “blood diamonds” in order to help to help Vandy expose them. He became a hero in the culture sense of PCP by standing up against the “blood diamond” operation.

Solomon Vandy was a hero on the personal level because he was driven to save his wife, daughter, and baby from the refugee camp and his son RUF forces. His motivation wasn’t personal greed to keep the diamond; however, it was to make sure his family was reunited and safe. He acted on a personal level to save, not himself, but his family. When his son was taken by the RUF he said to Vandy that he was already dead and to go ahead and kill him. To him, the safety of his family was more important than his own, and if they were in danger then it meant so was he. He did whatever it took to reunite them, even if it meant putting himself at harm in the process; thus making him a hero on the personal level of PCP.

Maddy Bowen was a hero on the political level because she helped to expose the conflict diamonds in an article that helped get the attention of many political leaders. She understood that in order to get the recognition required to stop the purchase of the diamonds, she was going to need evidence that couldn’t be overlooked. She was able to, with the help of Archer and Vandy, expose specific diamond companies that purchase and sell the conflict diamonds. She was able to raise awareness on the political level of the tragic war going on due to these “blood diamonds’; thus, making her a hero on the political level of PCP.

Overall, each character proved to be a hero in his or her own way and on a different level of PCP: personal, cultural, and political. Danny Archer was heroic in the cultural sense, due to the fact that he stood up against the RUF and the sale of conflict diamonds by releasing information vital to exposing the militant leaders of the operation. The family man, Solomon Vandy, was a hero to all of us in this film on the personal level, displaying the strength and devotion that a man has over his family in times of crisis. He went out of his way to save his family, even when it meant putting himself in danger. Finally Maddy Bowen, the political hero of the film, proved her heroism by writing an article that exposed the leaders in the blood diamond sales, and in the process grabbing the attention of political leaders. An act which was absolutely necessary in taking down the sale of blood diamonds and bringing the world one step closer to clean diamonds.

Blood Diamond. Dir. Edward Zwick. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly. Warner Bros. Pictures Distribution, 2006. DVD.